Share

Something wrong?

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

If you have non-permissions questions about the collection, please use the contact form. If you have concerns about the inclusion of an item in this collection, please contact LibraryIT-info@umich.edu.

October 13, 1960 (vol. 71, iss. 21)
-
Image 4

ien Opinions Are Free UNDER AUTTHOUTY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PunLICATIONs
TrFuth Wm i STUDENT PucLICATIoNs BLDG. * ANN ARBOR, MIcn. * Phone NO 2-3241
editorials ftrnted in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers,
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
RSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1960 NIGHT EDITOR: ANDREW HAWLEY

Shelley Berman
Was Very Funny
LOOK,look Jcane, there's the Cumberland Three,
Yes, yes Dick, they playk music:
Play, play Cumberland Three.
They are very cleancut boys. They dress very tweedy. They have
guitars and banjos. and conga drums. and bass fiddles. They play
and write and sing and hum and whistle and writhe to very earthy
music. They are so earthy they almost sound like the Kingston
Trio. But not quite.
MY FINE ARTS TEACHER would say their voices are quite
mellifluous and sensuous and send him into .throes of rapture some-

what akin to a Gauguin. I am
prone to disagree with my fine
arts teacher.
Yes, yes, disagree, Dick. Dis-
agree., disagree.
I am prone to think their overly
earthy voice quality is due to a
communal malfunction of the
larynx.
But Dick, they are cute. And
they are good fun. Tey make me
laugh. Look, look Spot, look at
Jane laugh. Ha, ha. .
SPOT LIKED THE Cumberland
Three because they sang a song
about a dog called Blue and they
had a blue spotlight, and it really-'
grabbed Spot. Spot cried.
Look, look Jane. Look at Spot
cry.
But Jane, they sang other songs.
They sang songs about political.
revolt. And they sang songs about
sex. And they- sang songs about
mothers. And they sang songs
about death.
Yes, yes Dick. They have a most
adequate repertoire. They would
be great at fraternity parties. If
you had a blind date.
Yes, Jane, a blind date.
* * *

AT THE CAMPUS:
A erian
Classic
"N the Waterfront" is now
playing at the Campus, star-
ring Marlon,_ Brando, Eva Marie
Saint, and Lee J. Cobb.
It is the story of the fight, the
struggle between the worker and
the corrupt big union men.
The fight is obviously uneven,
for the president and his men
have the power, the prestige, the
education, the intelligence: They
have the controls and feel enti-
tled to them. The workers then
become "D and D," the. deaf and
dumb. Why do they become this
way? Why do they let themselves
be handled, in any ways the big
men wants them to be?
A man was pushed into the river,
and .nobody will speak up. The
detectives hang around and in-
vestigate, the priest will ask from
the foot of the altar.. .and the
priest's sister will watch one of
the workers, Terry, and try her
hardest to find out the truth. But
Terry won't answer, and yet would
like to help. He has to be deaf
and he has to be durb: He's on
the losing end. But the situation
has to evolve too, for now two op-
posite pressures are stuck on each
side of him. On one hand, he is a
human being who must claim his
rights, and asked to tell the truth
in order to disrupt the infernal
game, and one the other hand,
he has to remain loyal to the team
...But for a long time, he has
not anything.

WALTER LIPPMANN:
Two Views on the Offshore Islands

T HE TV DEBATE is certain to
become a permanent feature
in campaigns for elective offices.
But the two debates we have seen
are experimental, and we should
be careful not to let their format
and procedure become frozen as a
precedent.
The most questionable feature
of the debates is the sandwiching
of a panel of interrogators be-
tween the two debaters. Genuine
debate can be had only if the de-
baters confront each other di-
rectly, and are allowed to ask each
other questions. To let the panel
ask the questions is to rely too
much on the judgment and on the
unconscious bias of the members
of the panel.
BUT THERE IS an even more
compelling reason, I submit, why
we must not let this format estab-
lish itself as a precedent for the
future. It is, to speak frankly,
that it is highly corruptible. I do
not, of course, think for a moment
that there is a shadow of doubt
about the distinguished corres-
pondents who have appeared in
the two debates. But the fact is
that the present format is a quiz
show, and, if the political quiz
show becomes the accepted format
not only for Presidential candi-
dates but for all other candidates
the temptation to rig the show is
in many cases almost certain to
become too strong to be resisted.
As in the qhiz shows the prize is
too great and the temptation is
too strong and corruption is too
easy.
The only certain guarantee
which the voters can have is that
the two candidates question each
other. Then rigging will be im-
possible.
TURNING TO questions of sub-
stance, there is the discussion of
the offshore Chinese island of
Quemoy and Matsu. In response to
Mr. Edward Morgan's question,
Sen. Kennedy had laid that the
islands were strategically inde-
fensible, that they are not essen-
tial to the defense of Formosa,
and that he was In favor of per-
suading the Chinese Nationalists
to pull their troops out of these
islands and back to Formosa.
Mr. Nixon's reply was that the
islands are "unimportant," that
"the few people who live on these
islands are not too important."
"It's the principle Involved." What
principle? "These two islands are
in the area of freedom. The Na-
tionalists have these two islands.
We should not force our National-
ist allies to get off of them and
give them to the Communists."
SO WE HAVE to defend Quemoy
and Matsu as a matter of prin-
ciple. But the Vice President seems
to have forgotten, or he is hoping
that the rest of have forgotten,
that five years ago-to be precise,
in January and February 1955-
President Eisenhower and Secre-
tary Dulles were quite unaware of
the existence of Mr. Nixon's
"principle." For It was then that
they induced our Nationalist al-
lies to evacuate their troops from
the Tachen Islands, and they
used the United States 7th fleet
to help the Chinese evacuate.
WXhv dd resP.idn1vt1 Eienhwern.

su what we did in the Tachens-
induce the Chinese Nationalists
to evacuate them because they are
not essential to the defense of
Formosa and the Pescadores.
WHY, IS IT FAIR to ask, did
President Eisenhower and Secre-
tary Dulles not apply the same
principle-that of strategic im-
portance in the defense of For-
mosa-to Quemoy and Matsu?
The true answer is that they
might have done so but Chiang
had too much political support in
the persons of Sens. Knowland
and Jenner. The Administration
could not and did not push the
matter through. But the Eisen-
hower administration has, never-
theless, regarded Quemoy and
Matsu as something to live with,
not somethingto rejoice over.
This came into the open in 1958.
In the first week of October Mr.
Herter, then Under Secretary of
State, made a speech saying that
Quemoy and Matsu were not
"strategically defensible:, and that
the Nationalist preoccupation with
these islands was "almost patho-

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

IBlanshard's Presentation One-Smwided

To the Editor:
MANY persons of various faiths
have been distressed by the
fact that the important issue of
church-state relations and civil
liberties has been delivered by
Challenge into the hands of Mr.
Paul Blanshard alone.
Challenge is to be commended
for bringing Mr. Blanshard here.
Many students have heard his
accusations but have not troubled
to read his books. His appearance
here was an opportunity for them
to be exposed to him and for him
to be exposed to them.
* * *
BUT LET ME POINT out that
the avowed non-partisanship of
Challenge is seriously compromised
by the fact that it has not only
brought Mr. Blanshard here but
has set itself up in the business
of selling his books. Challenge has
arranged a display of Mr. Blan-
shard's books in the foyer of the
Undergraduate Library (where his
books are already available any-
way, along with others on the
same topics). Above the display
is a notice that his books may be
purchased from the Challenge
office in the SAB. In the absence
of any reasonably objective ' pre-
sentation, either by those whom
Mr. Blanshard has explicitly at-
tacked or by others, this exclusive
merchandising activity can rea-
sonably be construed as implicit
endorsement of his views.
And yet this issue of church-
state relations and civil liberties
is too important to lie entirely
in the hands of a man who can-
not distinguish between legitimate
social issues and the moral doc-
trine subscribed to by members
of a particular faith. Settling
social conflict in a pluralistic so-
ciety is not furthered by pro-
nouncing a moral doctrine with
which you disagree a "medieval